4 ms·

It has evolved to be a store of value and it's doing an amazing job at that. Thinking from the perspective of the developers (many of whom have very large amoun

It has evolved to be a store of value and it's doing an amazing job at that. Thinking from the perspective of the developers (many of whom have very large amounts of BTC) a slow and deliberate rate of changes is a very good thing. Making a mistake here would mean hundreds of billions of dollars would be lost. I am all for other cryptos moving quickly and breaking things to test out new ideas. Who in their right mind would take the same mentality on Bitcoin?

newfoundglory 9y ago
Why is this praiseworthy in bitcoin and seen as delaying progress and selfishly holding onto gains in taxi companies?
ComputerGuru 9y ago
Bitcoin is absolutely not a good store of value. A good store of value is a reliable store of value: one where you can place your assets and go back and get them at any later time. As a deflationary currency, bitcoin would be a hypothetically good store of value if a bitcoin actually had any intrinsic or even just de facto value. But it clearly doesn’t: it’s only the conversion to and from USD (and others) that has given it any value at all as an investment vehicle to some. And _that_ value isn’t guaranteed preserved one bit.
- HereBeBeasties 9y ago
  Most asset classes look like that, though. Gold has some intrinsic value as a good conductor/reflector of heat. But it's not really so very much superior to aluminium or copper or whatever to make it worth what it is worth. It is expensive because it is scarce. That's it. Bitcoin is the same. (They are obviously very different in other ways, but you get the point.) Things don't need to have intrinsic value to be valuable. They simply need to be desired by the market.
  - chakalakasp 9y ago
    Gold isn't even in the same realm of volatility as BC, though. You put money in Gold and you're pretty sure if the world burns it's still worth something. You put money in BC at breakfast and you may be a pauper by lunch.
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    I agree with you - I actually implicitly meant everything you said. The crux of the matter lies with your last sentence: "They simply need to be desired by the market" Ergo, the quality of an asset as a "store of value" (the point of contention I was addressing in my comment) is directly mapped to the desire. BTC's desire is insanely volatile, automatically making it a poor store of value. My point is precisely that all assets used as currency are oftentimes intrinsically worthless. It's the demand - and the liquidity it provides converting to and fro said currency from other goods or currencies - that makes it a value storage vehicle. BTC, as a "value storage vehicle," is a very poor choice. Gold isn't.

newfoundglory 9y ago

Why is this praiseworthy in bitcoin and seen as delaying progress and selfishly holding onto gains in taxi companies?

ComputerGuru 9y ago

Bitcoin is absolutely not a good store of value. A good store of value is a reliable store of value: one where you can place your assets and go back and get them at any later time. As a deflationary currency, bitcoin would be a hypothetically good store of value if a bitcoin actually had any intrinsic or even just de facto value. But it clearly doesn’t: it’s only the conversion to and from USD (and others) that has given it any value at all as an investment vehicle to some. And _that_ value isn’t guaranteed preserved one bit.

HereBeBeasties 9y ago
Most asset classes look like that, though. Gold has some intrinsic value as a good conductor/reflector of heat. But it's not really so very much superior to aluminium or copper or whatever to make it worth what it is worth. It is expensive because it is scarce. That's it. Bitcoin is the same. (They are obviously very different in other ways, but you get the point.) Things don't need to have intrinsic value to be valuable. They simply need to be desired by the market.
- chakalakasp 9y ago
  Gold isn't even in the same realm of volatility as BC, though. You put money in Gold and you're pretty sure if the world burns it's still worth something. You put money in BC at breakfast and you may be a pauper by lunch.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  I agree with you - I actually implicitly meant everything you said. The crux of the matter lies with your last sentence: "They simply need to be desired by the market" Ergo, the quality of an asset as a "store of value" (the point of contention I was addressing in my comment) is directly mapped to the desire. BTC's desire is insanely volatile, automatically making it a poor store of value. My point is precisely that all assets used as currency are oftentimes intrinsically worthless. It's the demand - and the liquidity it provides converting to and fro said currency from other goods or currencies - that makes it a value storage vehicle. BTC, as a "value storage vehicle," is a very poor choice. Gold isn't.